


v.. J 



F 1234 
.T35 
Copy 1 




// 



MEXICAN RELATIONS. 



/ 



LETTER OF SOY. R; B. HUBBARD. OF TEZAS, 
TO PRESIDENT HAYES. „ ** :f:^ 




EXECUTIVE OFFICE,) 
Austin, Texas, January 8, 1878. j 
To His Excellency Rutherford B. Hayes, 

President of the United States : 

Sir : — I have the honor to acknowledge the promptness and spirit 
of justice which 'have characterized your official action in reference to 
the appeals of the Executive of this State in the matter of the late 
troubles on our Mexican frontier. 

In the demands which I made, under the extradition treaty, for fugi- 
tives from justice, in connection with the Rio Grande City and the 
Duval and Hidalgo county affairs, as well as my recent request for 
United States troops to aid in suppressing insiirrection, as well as inva- 
sion of our territory by Mexican citizens (of which I was officially ad- 
vised) at San Elizario, your ready compliance with that request deserves, 
as it has received, the earnest thanks of the State government and the 
people of Texas. 

The questions involved are of great moment to Texas. Much mis- 
construction and misapprehension have arisen beyond our limits as to 
the motives and policy as well as to the facts which have caused us to 
■invoke the intervention of the general government. To the end that 
those motives and those facts may be placed in a formal and official 
shape before your Excellency and the Congress, this paper is submitted. 

The Anglo -American and the Hispano -American represent different 
political ideas. The Spanish government has been based on the one 
man principle. The history of Spain shows that the character of the 
reigning sovereign impressed itself upon the country during his ad- 
ministration — an able monarch made a prosperous and happy people, 
and a weak one brought distrust and discontent. The clergy ruled the 
king — Church and State were united. The Spanish colonies were mod- 
eled after the metropolitan government. 

In quite all the governments of North, Central, and South America, 



T'5^ 



2 



Mexican Relations. 



peopled by Hispano-Americans, there is a religion of State- — an attempt 
to establish a national conscience. 

In Mexico there is a practical union of Church and State, notwith- 
standing unfreindly legislation during the days of Juarez, succeeding 
the Emyjire. 

The United States was colonized by men who fled from persecution, 
who claimed the right of free thought and free speech, and deprecated 
the alliance of Church and State. 

The advocates of these different political systems came in contact in 
Texas. They were unable to effect a compromise — -there was no middle 
.ground upon which they could stand. A contest ensued. The inhabi- 
tants of Texas planted themselves upon the broad principles of Republi- 
canism, set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed to 
every citizen by the Constitution. The government of Santa Ana was 
the exponent of Spanish ideas. The battle of San Jacinto gave to the 
cause of liberty and constitutional government "a local habitation and 
a name." The United States annexed Texas, and inherited the war. 
The treaty of Graudalupe-Hidalgo confirmed the title of the United States 
to Texas and other acquisitions. Our government discharged all the ob- 
ligations of that treaty except one, which was found impracticable, and 
for which failure she made amends and was exonerated. 

Mexico has violated almost every article of that and of every treaty 
she made with us. She seized goods introduced during the occupation 
of her territory by our troops, and sold them for her own benefit, in con- 
travention of the treaty. She permitted citizens of the United States, 
resident within her limits, to be robbed of their property, to be 
maltreated, and in many instances murdered, as the evidence before 
the Mixed Commission abundantly proves. She established the Zona 
Libre — free belt, — a line six miles in width and nearly one thousand 
miles in length, beginning at the Rio Grrande, and ending at El Paso, fol- 
lowing the sinuosities of the Rio Grande nearly three thousand miles in 
length. Into that belt goods, wares, and other merchandise can be in- 
troduced and sold free of duty. This law is in direct violation of the 
Constitution of Mexico. It is a discrimination against the United States, 
because it includes territory co-terminous with ours, and extends to na 
port on the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific Ocean. It is hostile in inter- 
est to the United States. It is a blow aimed at our commerce and our 
merchants doing business in the valley of the Rio Grande; it has 
dwarfed the former and almost ruined the latter. Compare the entries 
made at Brazos Santiago now^ and previous to 1861, and the proposition 
is fairly demonstrated. 

For more than twenty years Mexico has permitted her citizens to set 
on foot, upon her territory, expeditions to invade the United States, mur- 
der her citizens, and plunder them. In 1859,. Juan Nepomuceno Cortina 
placed himself at the head of one of these expeditions. He captured 
Brownsville, assassinated six of its citizens ; he robbed United States 
mails, fired upon her soldiers, made war upon her flag, and General 
Heintzelman said he "desolated one hundred and twenty miles of her 
fi'ontier." He was sustained hy the authorities of Mexico. He obtained 
from that country men and means. Instead of being punished for hi» 



Mexican Eelations. 3 

. ""j crimes, the Mexican government rewarded him by making him a Briga- 
'^'•Kiier-General in her army. At one time he was sent to the Rio Grande 
<■ as commander of that line and the representative of the supreme gov- 
^^'Ornment. While in that high position he was the recognized leadeV--at 
^^the raiders. He was an accessory of murderers and the partner of cattle 
^>^ and horse thieves. He systematized the depredatory war waged upon 
us, and snatched from his partisans a lion's share of the spoils. He en- 
tered into a contract with a Cuban house to furnish them with beeves. 
He sent raiders into Texas to obtain them. He placed them on board 
a steamer, with ikie original brands undefaced. Captain McNally fought, 
and defeated one of his predatory bands, within twelve miles of Fort 
Brown, and recaptured several hundreds of cattle. 

In 1872, Capt. Sabas Garcia, a captain in the regular army of Mexi- 
co, made hostile incursion into Texas at the head of his company. He 
arrested citizens of the United States, held them as prisoners, and 
crossed a large herd of stolen cattle into Mexico, at Galveston Eanclie, 
about twenty -five miles above Brownsville. He repeated his raids. 

Alijos Sanches, another Mexican officer, invaded Texas with troops 
in the service of Mexico, robbed Albert Champion of horses, and the 
animals were reclaimed from the possession of General Cortina. 

Cattle stolen from Texas owners have been seized by custom house 
guards — the thieves permitted to escape. The owners, or their author- 
ized agents, have demanded them from the Mexican Collector of Cus- 
toms, and he has refused to deliver them, on the pretext that the ani- 
mals had been introduced into Mexico contrary to law. They have 
been condemned and sold, and the proceeds have gone into the Treasury 
of Mexico. These things have happened at Reynosa and Camargo. In 
no instance did the Mexican authorities deny that they knew the ani- 
mals had been stolen in Texas and driven into Mexico against the 
wishes of the real owners. 

In Matamoros, a municipal tax was levied upon every animal sold 
within corporate limits. The brands were registered, and it was an ac- 
knowledged fact that the authorities were making money out of prop- 
erty robbed from the people of Texas. 

The evidences derived from the reports of the military, of civil ofli- 
cers, of legislatures, of congressional committees. United States commis- 
sioners. State and JFederal grand juries, and from affidavits of citizens 
of unquestioned veracity, prove: — 

1. The nature and extent of the depredatory war. 

2. That custom house officials have been murdered, custom houses 
taken and robbed, post offices robbed and burned, hundreds of citizens 
killed, — some tortured ; — William McMahan, for instance, had his legs 
cut off, and was forced to walk on the stumps ; Murdock was chained, 
" a harrow placed on him, and he was burned, while- in his own house in 
nine miles of Corpus Christi ; " — and women have been made prisoners 
and subjected to treatment too horrible to mention. 

S. Millions of dollars' worth of property has been taken from Texas 
owners, carried into Mexico, and sold in the public markets. 

4. Mexico has furnished an asylum for the robbers, and a place of 
deposit for their stolen goods. 



4 Mexican Relations. 

5. The Mexican government has been notified many times by ours 
of the existence of these evils ; she has not restrained her citizens, and 
she refuses to permit the United States to break np the hostile bands 
which commit the atrocities, and has declared an attempt to do so a 
cause for war. 

6. She has refused to execute the extradition treaty, by not surren- 
dering raiders, who were themselves "enemies of mankind," by break- 
ing the jail of Starr county, releasing prisoners therefrom, and wanton- 
ly wounding our peace officers, and by turning loose fugitives under 
indictment for murder in Texas, and regularly demanded by our Com- 
missioner of Extradition. 

7. , She has afforded asylum to Indians, and permitted them to use 
her territory to set on foot expeditions to invade the territory of the 
United States, and to wage savage warfare upon the people of Texas, 
including within its scope every age and sex. Children have been cap- 
tured in Texas, carried into Mexico, and held as slaves. [See case of 
Smith and others, before United States Frontier Commission.'] 

The property stolen by the Indians has been sold publicly in Mexico, 
and contracts for outfitting Indians enforced by the Mexican authorities. 

Under the extraordinary circumstances — a state of affairs worse to 
the residents of Western Texas than war, and to which no people in 
modern times have been subjected — what is the duty of the United 
States ? 

To answer properly, it will be necessary to refer to standard authori- 
ties on international law. According to Wheaton : " Cicero, and after 
" him the modern public jurists, define a State to be a body politic, or 
" society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mu- 
" tual safety and advantage by their combined strength." International 
Law, § 17. 

Vattel sa\s : " The end or object of civilization is to procure for the 
'• citizens whatever they stand in need of for the necessities, the conve- 
"niences, the accommodation of life, and, in general, whatever consti- 
" tutes happiness, — with the peaceful possession of property, a method 
" of obtaining justice, and, finally, a mutual defense against all external 
"violence." Laws of Nations, Book I., § 15. 

He declares the engagements to be mutual between all the members 
of the political body, and that " they can in no otherwise be fulfilled 
" than by maintaining the political association. The entire nation is 
^ " then obliged to maintain that association ; and as their preservation 
" depends on its continuance, it thence follows that every nation is 
" obliged to perform the duty of self-preservation." Book L, Chap. 2, 
§ 17, side page 5. 

In Section 17, he clearly points *out the duty of a State to its citi- 
zens: "If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged 
" carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, 
" since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and is injurious 
" to its preservation. It owes this, also, to the members in particular, 
" in consequence of the very act of association ; for those who compose 
"a nation are united for their defense and common advantage; and 
" none can justly be deprived of this union, and of the advantages he 



Mexican Relations. 5 

" expects to derive from it, while he, on his side, fulfills thy conditions." 
* * * Again he says ; * * * " The body of a nation cannot, 
"then, abandon o, province, or even a single individual who is a part-Qf 
"it, unless compelled to ifc by necessity, or indispensably obliged to it 
" by the strongest reasons founded, on the public safety." Vattel, side 
page 6. 

In continuation, he observes : " Since, then, a nation is obliged to 
" preserve itself, it has a right to everything necessary for its preserva- 
"tion." 

The right of protection goes with the citizen to every part of the 
globe. Pie can claim it wherever business or pleasure calls him. It 
is extended alike to the native-born and the naturalized citizen. In the 
case of Martin Costa, it was given where only a declaration of intention 
to become a citizen of the United States had been made. He was a 
Hungarian ; had taken part in the revolution against Austria, headed 
by Kossuth. After living some time in the United States, he went to 
Smyrna, in the Turkish dominions; was seized by Grreek hirelings, un- 
der the Austrian flag, and carried aboard the Austrian war vessel, the 
Huszar, and released by the intervention of Captain Ingraham, of the 
St. Louis. His action was endorsed by the President. Mr. Hulseman 
complained, and Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, replied, Septem- 
ber, 26, 1853: "Mr. Hulseman, as the undersigned believes, falls into 
" a great error — an error fatal to some of his most important conclu- 
" sions — by assuming that a nation can properly extend its protection 
" only to native-born or naturalized citizens. This is not the doctrine 
" of international law, nor is the practice of nations circumscribed 
" within such narrow limits. This law does not, as has been before 
"remarked, complicate questions of this nature by respect for munici- 
"pal codes. In relation to this subject, it has clear and distinct rules 
" of its own. It gives the national character of the country not only to 
"native-born and naturalized citizens, but to all residents in it, who are 
" there with, or even without, an intention to become citizens, provided 
" they have a domicile therein." Message and Documents, 1853-4, Part /, 
p)age 40. 

This indicates who are to be protected, and statesmen have agreed 
upon the reasons why this protection should be so broad and compre- 
hensive. 

There is another feature in the matter. Protection is the price the 
State pays the citizen for his allegiance. In September, 1814, the 
British took Castine, in Maine, and held it until peace was concluded, 
in February, 1815. The British government exercised supreme au- 
thority over the place ; established a custom house, and regulated the 
tariff upon goods imported. Upon the evacuation of the place by the 
British, the United States resumed possession, and demanded payment 
of duties upon goods imported during the British occupation. In a case 
appealed to the Supreme Court, Judge Storey delivered the opinion, 
from which an extract is here made : — 

" Under the circumstances, we are all of opinion that the claim for 
" duties cannot be sustained. By the conquest and military occupation 
"of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm possession which enabled 



6 Mexican Relations. 

" him to exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over that place. The 
" sovereignty of the United States over the territory was of course sus- 
"pended, and the laws of the United States c<">uld no longer be right- 
" fully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remain- 
'' ed and submitted to the conquerors. By surrender, the inhabitants 
"passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government, and 
" were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and 
"impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obliga- 
" tory upon them; for where there is no jirotection^ or allegiance, or sov- 
'"'• ereignty, there can he no claim to obedience." U. S. v. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 
254. 

Had the fortunes of war left Castine in permanent possession of Eng- 
land, the people of that place would have become bona fide subjects of 
his British majesty. 

The reasons for protection lie at the very foundation of States. Pub- 
lic jurists have indicated emergencies calling for the exercise of the 
great sovereign power of self-preservation. 

Where a nation receives an injury from another, or from the citizens 
of another State, it has a perfect right to institute measures of defense. 
Vattel says : — 

" It is safest to prevent the evil, when it can be prevented. A nation 
"has a right to resist an injurious attempt, and to make use of force 
"and every honorable expedient against whosoever is actually engaged 
"in opposition to her, and even to anticipate his machinations." * * 
Book 11, Chap. 4, § 50. 

" Finally, the offended party have a right to provide for their future 
" security, and to chastise the offender. * * * They may even, if 
" necessary, disable the aggressor from doing further injury." Ih., § 52. 

It is laid down as a principle, that " the nation or the sovereign ought 
" not to suffer the c^.V^2e7^5 to do an injury to the subjects of another 
" State, much less to offend the State itself. * * ^ But if a nation, 
"or its chief, approves and ratifies the act of the individual, it then be- 
" comes a public concern ; and the injured party is to consider the na- 
" tion as the real author of the injury, of which the citizen was perhaps 
"only the instrument." lb., §§ 72, 73. 

Again: " If the offended State has in her power the individual who 
" has done the injury, she may, without scruple, bring him to justice 
" and punish him. If he has escaped and returned to his own country, 
"she ought to apply to his sovereign to have justice done in the 
"case. * * * 

" And since the latter ought not to suffer his subjects to molest the 
" subjects of other States, or to do them an injury, much less to give 
" open, audacious offense to foreign powers, he ought to compel the trans- 
" gressor to make reparation for the damage or injury, if possible, or to in- 
" fiict on him an exemplary punishment; or, finally, according to the 
"nature and circumstances of the case, to deliver up to the offended State, 
" to be there brought to justice. This is pretty generally observed with 
" regard to great crimes, which are equally contrary to the laws and 
" safety of nations. Assassins, incendiaries, and robbers are seized 
" everywhere at the desire of the sovereign in whose territory the crime 



Mexican Relations. 7 

" was committed, and are delivered up to his justice/^' Vattel Booh 11^ 
Chap. 6, §§ 75, 76. 

In Section 77, Vattel affirms that " the sovereign who refuses^^to 
'' cause reparation to be made for the damage done bj his subject, or to 
" punish the offender, or, iinally, to deliver him up, renders himself in 
" some measure an accomplice in the injury, an(J becomes responsi- 
" ble for it. 

" Finally, there is another case where the nation in general is guilty of 
'• the crimes of its memhers. That is, when, by its manners and by the 
" maxims of its government, it accustoms and authorizes its citizens 
" indiscriminately to plunder and maltreat foreigners, and to make in- 
" roads into the neighboring countries, etc. •» * * The princes 
" whose subjects are robbed and massacred, and whose lands are in- 
" fested by those robbers, may justly level their vengeance against the 
" violation at large. Nay, more ; have a right to enter into a league 
'' against such a people, to repress them, and to treat them as the com- 
" mon enemies of the human race." /&., § 78, side page 164. 

Phillimore says : " The right of self-preservation is the first law of 
" nations, as it is of individuals. A society which is not in a condition 
•' to repel aggression from without, is wanting in its principal duty to 
" the members of which it is composed, and to the chief end of its in- 
"stitution." Phillimore on International Laio, Vol. 1, Chajx 9, § 209, szo?e 
jjage 225. 

" CCXIIl. We have hitherto considered what measures a nation is 
" entitled to take for the preservation of her safety within her own do- 
" minions. It may happen that the same right may warrant her in ex- 
" tending precautionary measures luitliout these limits, and even in 
'• transgressing the borders of her neighbor's territory For international 
" law considers the right of self-preservation as prior and paramount to 
" that of territorial inviolability, and where they conflict, justifies the 
" maintenance of the former at the expense of the latter right. 

" The case of conflict, indeed, must be indisputable, pomeridiana luce 
" clarior, in the language of canonists. Such a case, however, is quite 
" conceivable. A rebellion, or a civil commotion, it may happen, agi- 
" tates a nation ; while the authorities are engaged in repressing it, bands 
" of rebels pass the frontier, shelter themselves under the protection of 
" the coterminous State, and from thence, with restored strength and 
" fresh appliances, renew their invasions upon the State from which 
" they have escaped. The invaded State remonstrates. The remon- 
" strance, whether from favor to the rebels or feebleness of the execu- 
" tive, is unheeded, or at least the evil complained of remains unre- 
" dressed. 

" In this state of things, the invaded State is warranted by interna- 
" tional law in crossing the frontier, and in taking the necessary means 
" for her safety, whether these be the capture or dispersion of the rebels, 
" or the destruction of their stronghold, as the exigencies of the case 
'• may require." 75., side pages 226, 227. 

In illustrating this doctrine, Phillimore refers to the case of the Caro- 
line, on the Canadian border, in 1838 : " CCXVIII. In all cases where 
"the territory of one nation is invaded from the country of another,- 



8 Mexican Relations. 

" whether tlie invading force be composed of the refugees of the coun- 
" try invaded, or of subjects of the other country, or of both, — the 
" government of the invaded countr}^ has a right to be satisfied that the 
" country from M^hich the invasion has come has neither by sufferance 
" nor reception {piatient/ia aut receptii) knowingly aided or abetted it. She 
" must purge herself of both these charges, otherwise, if the cause be the 
" feebleness of her government, the invaded country is warranted in re- 
" dressing her own wrong by entering the territory and destroying the 
" preparations of w^ar therein made against her ; or, if these have been 
" encouraged by the government, then the invaded country has a strict 
" right to make war upon that country herself ; because she has afEorded 
" not merely an asylum, but the means of hostility to the foes of a na- 
" tion with whom she was at peace. For it never can be maintained 
" that however much a State ma}^ suffer from piratical incursions, 
" which the feebleness of the executive government of the country 
" whence they emanate renders it incapable of preventing or punishing, 
" that until such government shall voluntarily acknowledge the fact, the 
" injured State has no right to give itself that security which its neigh- 
" bor's government admits that it ought to enjoy, but which the gov- 
" ernment is unable to guarantee." 

It must be admitted that there is a practical acknowledgment of 
such imbecility which as much as a voluntary confession justifies the 
offended country in a course of action which would under other cir- 
cumstances be unlawful. There is a very important chapter, both in 
Grrotius and in his commentator Heineccius, entitled, "i^e poenarmn 
" comrmmicatione,^^ as to when the guilt of a malefactor, and its conse- 
quent punishment, is communicated to other than himself ; and the 
question is particularly considered with reference to the responsibility 
of States for the conduct of their citizens. The tests for discovering — 
" Civitione delinquerii au civesV — are laid down with great precision 
and unanimity of sentiment by all publicists, and are generally re- 
duced to two, as will be seen from the following extract from Burl e- 
maqui (who repeats the opinion of Grrotius and Heineccius ) : "In civil 
" societies" (he says), " when a particular member has done an injury to 
" a stranger, the governor of the commonwealth is sometimes respon- 
" sible for it, so that war may be declared against him on that account. 
" But to ground that kind of imputation, we must necessarily suppose 
"one of these two things — sufferance or reception; viz. : either that 
" the sovereign has suffered the harm to be done to the stranger, or 
" that he has afforded a retreat to the criminal. • In the former case, it 
" must be laid down as a maxim that a sovereign who knowing the 
" crimes of his subjects — as, for example, that Xhej practice piracy on 
" strangers, — and being able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder 
" it, renders himself criminal ; because he has consented to the bad 
" action, the commission of which he has permitted, and consequently 
" furnished a just reason of war. The two conditions are absolutely 
"necessary, — I mean the knowledge and sufferance of the sovereign 
" are absolutely necessary, the one not being sufficient without the 
" other to communicate any share in the guilt. Now, it is presumed 
" that a sovereign knows what his subjects openly and frequently com- 



Mexican Relations. 9 

" mit ; and as to his power of hindering the evil, this likewise is alwa_ys 
" presumed, unless the tuant of it be clearly proved." lb., side pp. 230-2. 

In support of Section 213, Mr. Phillimore quotes Vattel, Lib. III., 
Ch. 7, Sees. 133, 218; lb.. Book II., Ch. 6, Sec. 72. 

By the light of these great authorities, recognized among all civilizecT 
peoples, do we desire our rights to be determined and our conduct to 
be judged. 

In all the past history of our relations with the Republic of Mexico, 
since annexation in 1845 and the consequent war of 18-46, tlie civil gov- 
ernment of Texas as w^ll as the general government have been patient 
under wn-ongs inflicted, have frowned upon all attempts at fillibus 
tering or violations of neutrality laws, and have proposed only to 
demand the rights which international law and comity accords to all 
nations. 

Mexico has incurred the guilt of permitting her citizens to set on foot 
expeditions to invade the United States, and to inflict upon the people 
of Texas all the horrors of inhuman warfare, and she has not properly 
endeavored to restrain them. All writers on international law agree 
that in such a case the agrieved State has a perfect right to enter the 
territory of the oiJending power, and to break up the illegitimate com- 
binations formed to wage unlawful warfare upon her; and it is no cause 
of war, the offending State has no right to complain, because her 
neighbor has been compelled to resort to measures of self-defense and 
self-preservation. Phillimore claims that the offended nation need not 
enquire whether the offending State has the ability to restrain her citi- 
zens. The naked fact of the incursions, murders, and robberies, and 
the use of the territory of the offending power by the robbers, justifies 
the agrieved nation in resorting to ulterior measures. 

When our government directed General Ord to follow marauders 
across the Rio Grrande, President Diaz — represented to be better affected 
towards Americans than others having occupied that position — instructed 
his officers to repel force by force. Lerdo, the deposed President, in his 
forced exile issued a similar pronunciamento. Both treat the exercise 
of this undoubted right of self-defense as a castes belli. 

The government and the people of Texas have exhausted every 
means of communicating to the general government a correct knowledge 
of their grievances. They have forwarded individual petitions, memo- 
rials of legislatures and conventions, reports and depositions, and for 
years they have waited for action adequate to give the frontier of Wes- 
tern Texas protection. Up to the present there is insecurity to person 
and property on the Rio Grrande. The only hope of protection and re- 
dress is in the general government. It would be folly to expect any 
change for the better, as far as the Mexican government is concerned. 
A people who make w^ar upon their own government ; who raise the 
standard of revolt and lev}^ contributions upon their fellow-citizens, and 
misapply them ; who recognize revolutions as an element of political 
reform ; who decide elections by the bayonet ; who disregard treaties, 
and who have no confidence in each other; who disregard, in fact if not 
in diplomacy, all the obligations of national comity and good neigh- 
borhood, cannot be looked to with any prospect of success in a case in- 



10 Mexican Relations. 

volving the interests and welfare of a nation thej regard as hereditary 
enemies, and hate with unquestioned intensity. 

The correspondence between the Executive of Texas, the Extradi- 
tJjon Commissioners, and the Mexican authorities, touching the Rio 
Grande City jail -breaking and release of indicted felons, and touching, 
likewise, the five indicted murderers from Duval and Hidalgo, who, 
after formal demand under the treaty, were turned loose in the streets 
of Matamoros — all this, together with the explicit military correspond- 
ence of Gen. E. O. C. Ord, commanding this department, show conclu- 
sively the bad temper of the j^eojjfe and officers of the border States of 
Mexico towards this country. 

Granting that President Diaz, whether from considerations of prospec- 
tive recognition by the United States, or from an honest desire to culti- 
vate friendly and commercial relations with this country, intends to 
enforce obedience to international laws and treaties from his border 
people, the past and present, at least, do not furnish us with any hope 
that he will succeed. Troops may be — as they are said to be — coming 
to his Eastern frontiers from the city of Mexico. They will not, if the 
future is to be judged by the past, obey their President in any case 
involving the extradition oi Mexican citizens j^ropeo-, or of American citi- 
zens naturalized, but who are of Mexican blood. 

But granting, also, that for the future all may be well, and peace and 
protection should reign on the extended boundary line of the Rio 
Grande, does that absolve the Republic of Mexico from reparations for 
wrongs committed on person and property of Texas citizens in the past? 
What action has been taken by the Mexican government looking to 
legal and national satisfaction for these latest outrages (now placed be- 
fore the government), as well as fur the numerous instances heretofore 
recited, and made the subject of a grave official report to Congress by a 
committee of its most able and impartial members? (See report on 
" Mexican Outrages," of Hon. G. Schleicher, Banks, Lamar, and others.) 

The only answer — understood if not expressed- — we have received to 
all these complaints has been — 

"Ze^ the dead past bury its dead." 

A memorial goes to the State Legislature from our frontiers: joint 
resolutions — as for thirty years — are adopted ; Senators and Representa- 
tives present them to our Congress ; and the result has generally been, 
statutory promises for better protection in the future ; more troops, more 
railroads, more ships, and more coastwise commerce and reciprocity 
treaties, are vouchsafed. But we are still made to feel, by expressive 
silence, that property already stolen, homes already plundered, citizens 
already murdered, belong to the past, which comes not back again ! 
The result is, Texas has been compelled to spend nearly two millions 
of her own money to maintain her own soldiers on a line nearly one 
thousand miles long, both of Mexican and Indian border. 

Texas does not want ivar. Her members of Congress have recently 
told the country, faithfully and truly, that we only ^m sail protection noio 
and for the future and just reparation for the past. Our material inter- 
ests would not be profited, and surely the destruction of precious life. 



Mexican Relations. . 11 

more valued than gold, urges the avoidance of war by every means 
known to national honor. The present Executive of Texas has 
taken every precaution to avoid conflict — a conflict which he might 
have precipitated at any hour or day. He has subjected his troops 
to the orders of the United States department commander in all 
matters touching crossing the Rio Grande in pursuit of raiders or 
robbers from Mexico. The correspondence with General Ord — now 
published by order of Congress — shows this most conclusively. In 
demands for "fugitives from justice," nnder the extradition treaty, no 
courtesy even known to enlightened diplomacy has been neglected; 
nor has any boastful threats been uttered by our official extradition 
agents, in word or in writing, towards our weaker neighbor. 

Whether from an nnmanly fear that war would depress the values of 
American bonds they may hold, or for the time interfere with pet-schemes 
of speculation at the capital of Mexico, or from that lurking distrust or 
hatred of any measure looking to redress of wrongs which Texas has 
borne — whether from one or all of these motives, certain it is that injus- 
tice, gross injustice, has been done to the government and the people of 
this State by the false charges coming from beyond her borders that 
Texas loants luar, for its own sake, or for selfish ambition ! We have 
asked for our rights only — even-handed justice, — based on the Rio 
Grande City and the Duval and Hidalgo outrages, and we have been 
denied them positively and even rudely. 

We followed the same prudent course in the recent El Paso troubles. 
A cool, sagacious officer (Major Jones), was sent to that distant scene of 
trouble. He said to both Texan and Mexican citizens that we wanted 
no Adolence, and no interference by their kindred on the Mexican side 
of the Rio Grande. Peace was restored ; a detachment of State rangers 
was stationed there. Twenty days had not passed before a mob, com- 
posed largely of Mexican citizens^ broke their pledges of peace and became 
drunk with riot and blood. It has been said that the Mexican govern- 
ment has nothing to do with these " local affairs.''^ The Republic of Mex- 
ico, as such, doubtless, did not order the raiders to break the jail at Rio 
Grande City, or to release Texas murderers at Matamoros. Nor is it 
charged that President Diaz ordered actucd citizens of Mexico to aid the 
mob — as they did- — w^ho recently set at defiance the civil authority, at- 
tacked our citizens and soldiers at San Elizario, forced them to surren- 
der by base treachery, and then cowardly shot to death three of these 
betrayed Texas citizens by the merciless fusilade. 

But this massacre looses nothing of its horrible significance when the 
commander of the Texas rangers makes official report — as he does — 
that these men " were placed in front of their open graves and shot to death 
hy a detail of nine citizens of Mexico from across the Rio Grande f * * 

Yet, who will in this age deny that for all these acts of her people^ 
Mexico must make amejids, by every principle of international law we 
have recited and invoked, and thus, and thus only, clear her national 
skirts of the great crime comm^itted by her own citizens? 

If, indeed, that govei'nment acknowledges the crimes of her citizens, 
punishes them herself, or allows us to do so, and makes proper repara- 
tion for the persons and property destroyed, then surely we have no 



12 • Mexican Relations. 






claim on a country who thus rises at once to the dignity of a great and 
Christian power. 

y' she refuses to lhus account for the criminal acts of her individual 
Izens, whether alone or in mobs, then their government is responsible ; 
and the "argument being exhausted," a resort to the last arbiter of na- 
tions would be unfortunately the onh?^ alternative. 

To the wisdom and to the justice of the President and of the Con- 
gress we submit this plain statement of our case. "Ileiterating again 
that the people and the government of Texas desire nothing but honor- 
able peace at home and abroad, based upon a mutual observance of 
comity and nationai treaties for the future and an equitable adjustment 
of mutual claims of reparation for i\\e past, 
I have the honor to be, sir, 

Very respectfully. 

Your obedient servant, 

R. B. Hubbard, 

Governor of Texas. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




015 829 142 3 ^i 



